A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws andseeking certification as a class action was filed against DeltaAir and AirTran in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that AirTran conspiredwith Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item ofchecked luggage. The initial complaint sought treble damages onbehalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the UnitedStates who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees ondomestic flights beginning Dec. 5, 2008.

Subsequent to the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various othernearly identical complaints also seeking certification as classactions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases wereconsolidated before a single judge in Atlanta.

An amended complaint filed in February 2010 in the consolidatedaction broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta andAirTran also cut capacity on competitive routes and raised prices.The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief against a broadrange of alleged anticompetitive activities and attorneys fees.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 23, 2010,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

AirTran Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.airtran.com/-- conducts all of its flight operations through its wholly owned subsidiary,AirTran Airways, Inc.. The company operates scheduled airlineservice throughout the United States and to selected internationallocations. Approximately half of its flights originate orterminate at its hub in Atlanta, Georgia and it serves a number ofmarkets with non-stop service from its focus cities of Baltimore,Maryland, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Orlando, Florida. As of Feb.1, 2010, the company operated 86 Boeing B717-200 aircraft (B717)and 52 Boeing B737-700 aircraft (B737) offering approximately 700scheduled flights per day to 63 locations in the United States,including San Juan, Puerto Rico, and to Orangestad, Aruba, Cancun,Mexico, and Nassau, The Bahamas. During the year ended Dec. 31,2009, the company initiated service to seven domestic locationsand initiatedservice to three international destinations.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Disputes Charges Over Lost Baggage-----------------------------------------------------Scott Mayerowitz and Ray Sanchez at ABC News report that AmericanAirlines disputes the charges leveled against it in a $5 millionclass action lawsuit over a lost bag, but the woman who filed thesuit is not backing down.

Danielle Covarrubias flew the airline last May from Seattle toGrand Rapids, Mich., and paid $25 to check her bag. She made it toher destination on time, but her bag did not. She claimed she suedthe airlines when officials refused to refund the baggage fee.

American told ABC News that it disputes some of Ms. Covarrubias'details. The bag did arrive, just a day later, American said. AndMs. Covarrubias never contacted the airline about the delayed bagor to seek a refund, airline officials claim.

"We at American Airlines have not been able to find any record ofMs. Covarrubias ever contacting or speaking to us about herdelayed bag, a possible claim, or the subject of checked bagcharges," spokesman Tim Smith said in an e-mail to ABC News. "Anyof our customers who choose to file a baggage claim with AmericanAirlines are always welcome to include a request for a checked bagfee refund as part of that claim. That is the proper procedure forany customer to seek a refund on a checked bag charge."

David Ongaro, a lawyer for Ms. Covarrubias, said the airline'sstatement is "not true." As for the arrival of the bag, Mr.Ongaro said it doesn't matter that it showed up the next day.

"There's a contact that's entered into when the parties pay thatbaggage fee and the contract is that you are going to deliver thatbag with the passenger at the location," Mr. Ongaro said. "If thebag isn't delivered, then there's a breach of that contract."

"It would be the same thing if I said to you: Oh, you're having aparty Saturday. I'll come by and mow your lawn for $100. You giveme the $100 and I show up Tuesday to mow your lawn. It's not whatyou bargained for and I shouldn't get to keep the $100," thelawyer said.

APPLE INC: Faces New Lawsuit Over OverHeating iPad--------------------------------------------------Jeff Gamet, writing for The Mac Observer, reports that Apple washit with a new lawsuit on July 23 that alleges the iPad overheatstoo quickly and stops working in sunlight and hot weatherconditions. The case was filed in Federal Court in Oakland,California, and is seeking class action status, according toBloomberg.

The suit claims Apple's iPad "overheats so quickly under commonweather conditions," and fails to "live up to the reasonableconsumer's expectations created by Apple."

Apple's iPad is a multimedia tablet device with a 9.7-inch multi-touch display. The tablet runs the same operating system as theiPhone and iPod touch, and is capable of running most of the sameapps, too. It includes built-in Wi-Fi networking support,Bluetooth support, can play videos and music, includes an ebookreader app, and more.

Along with class action status, the lawsuit is asking forunspecified damages. Apple has not commented on the pending case.

BIOSPHERE MEDICAL: Faces "Fessahaye" Suit in Delaware-----------------------------------------------------BioSphere Medical, Inc., faces the suit Fessahaye v. Faleschini,et al., C.A. No. 5553-CC, filed in the Court of Chancery of theState of Delaware, according to the company's June 23, 2010, Form8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 10, 2010, certain of the members of the Board of Directorsof the company were named as defendants in a putative class actioncomplaint.

The action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of thecompany's stockholders, alleges that certain of the company'sdirectors purportedly breached their fiduciary duties inconnection with the company's proposed merger with MedicalSystems, Inc., by failing to maximize shareholder value and obtainthe best financial and other terms. The complaint includes arequest for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief,including to enjoin the Company from consummating the merger withMerit, in addition to fees and costs.

On July 19, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding thecompany as a defendant and further alleging that the company'spreliminary proxy statement fails to provide material informationand provides materially misleading information relating to theproposed merger transaction.

BioSphere Medical, Inc. seeks to pioneer and commercializeminimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic applications basedon proprietary bioengineered microsphere technology. Thecompany's core technologies, patented bioengineered polymers andmanufacturing methods, are used to produce microscopic sphericalmaterials with unique beneficial properties for a variety ofmedical applications. BioSphere Medical's principal focus is theuse of its products for the treatment of symptomatic uterinefibroids using a procedure called uterine fibroid embolization, orUFE. The company's products continue to gain acceptance in thisrapidly emerging procedure, as well as in a number of other newand established medical treatments.

Mr. Kurth brings this action on behalf of all current and formeremployees of CA, Inc., who are or were employed by CA as SoftwareEngineers, or similar titles, who were, are, or continue to beimproperly misclassified as exempt from overtime pay underCalifornia law.

CASH AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification in Payday Loans Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Cash America International, Inc.'s appeal on the ruling grantingclass certification in suit alleging the company made illegalpayday loans in Georgia remains pending, according to thecompany's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class actionlawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against GeorgiaCash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc., Daniel R.Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and"stakeholders" of Cash America.

The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among themost significant of which is that Cash America made illegal paydayloans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the GeorgiaIndustrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act.

Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia residentsthrough Cash America's Georgia operating locations.

The complaint in the lawsuit claims that Cash America was the truelender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers andthat CSB's involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge."

Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "defacto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney'sfees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatorydamages.

A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America'saffirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on CashAmerica's previously filed motion to compel arbitration) wasupheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24, 2007, theGeorgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

The case has been returned to the State Court of Cobb County,Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that thetrial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compelarbitration and stay the State Court proceedings.

The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion tocompel arbitration was rendered moot after the Court struck CashAmerica's affirmative defenses based on arbitration.

The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review these orders andremanded the case to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia.

On Nov. 2, 2009, the State Court granted class certification, andon Nov. 18, 2009, Cash America filed its notice of appeal of theclass certification order. The appellate court has informed theparties that the matter will be decided by submission without oralargument, and the appellate court has not rendered its decision.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/-- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashingservices and other specialty financial services to individuals.It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personalproperty that has been forfeited in connection with its pawnlending operations.

On March 5, 2009, Mr. Alfeche filed a purported class actionlawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania against Cash America International, Inc., CashAmerica Net of Nevada, LLC, Cash America Net of Pennsylvania, LLCand Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CashNetUSA's onlinepayday lending activities in Pennsylvania were illegal and not inaccordance with the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection Law orthe licensing requirements of the CDCA.

The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that several ofCashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including choice of law andarbitration provisions, are not authorized by Pennsylvania law.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney'sfees and the trebling of any compensatory damages.

CashNetUSA filed a motion to enforce the arbitration provisionlocated in the agreements governing the lending activities, and ahearing on the motion was held on July 1, 2009.

On July 16, 2009, CashNetUSA filed a motion to stay the litigationpending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Stolt- Nielsen, S.A. v.AnimalFeeds, Int'l Corp., which addresses the treatment of classaction waivers in arbitration provisions under the FederalArbitration Act.

A hearing on the motions was held on Oct. 14, 2009, and the Courthas not rendered its decision.

The Alfeche litigation is still at an early stage.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 23, 2010,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/-- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashingservices and other specialty financial services to individuals.It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personalproperty that has been forfeited in connection with its pawnlending operations.

On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a purported class actionlawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Pennsylvania, against Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC and severalother unrelated third-party lenders.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants'lending activities in Pennsylvania, including CashNet Nevada'sonline payday lending activities in Pennsylvania, were illegal andin violation of various Pennsylvania laws, including the LoanInterest Protection Law, the CDCA and the Unfair Trade Practicesand Consumer Protection Laws.

The complaint seeks payment of potential fines, unspecifieddamages, attorney's fees and the trebling of certain damages.

The defendants removed the case to the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where the lawsuitnow resides.

The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge presidingin the Alfeche litigation.

On Aug. 26, 2009, the Court severed the claims against the otherdefendants originally named in the litigation. CashNet Nevadafiled a motion with the federal court to enforce the arbitrationprovision located in the agreements governing the lendingactivities on May 4, 2009, and the Court has not yet ruled on thismotion.

The Clerk litigation is still at an early stage.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 23, 2010,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/-- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashingservices and other specialty financial services to individuals.It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personalproperty that has been forfeited in connection with its pawnlending operations.

COLLINS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Can File 2nd Amended Complaint----------------------------------------------------------Judge Kenneth A. Marra of the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida gave plaintiffs in West Palm BeachPolice Pension Fund v. Collins Capital Low Volatility PerformanceFund Ii, Ltd., Case No. 09-cv-80846 (July 26, 2010) until August15 to a Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund brought a four-countAmended Class Action Complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, grossnegligence, unjust enrichment and declaratory relief againstCollins Capital Low Volatility Performance Fund II, Ltd., CollinsCapital Low Volatility Performance Fund II, LP and Collins CapitalInvestments, LLC. Plaintiff brought the case as a class action onbehalf of all persons or entities who were shareholders in theFund between June 1, 2007, and December 11, 2008. The AmendedComplaint states that, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, a substantialportion of its investment in the Fund was turned over to BernardL. Madoff through Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. Thetransfer was facilitated by the Fund's investment in the RyeSelect Broad Market Prime Fund, LP. Due to the Fund's allegedfailure to conduct proper due diligence of its investments in theFeeder Fund, Plaintiff's investments were lost to Madoff's Ponzischeme. Plaintiff's losses also resulted from the grossnegligence of "several entities" that facilitated Plaintiff'sinvestments in the Fund.

In moving to dismiss the Amended Complaint, Defendants argue thatall claims against Collins Investments must be dismissed becausePlaintiff lacks standing to assert derivative claims, all stateclaims are barred by the Securities Litigation Uniform StandardsAct and Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims against anyDefendant.

Upon review, the Court agrees that the Amended Complaint lacks thenecessary clarity and, by making allegations against Defendantscollectively, lacks the required pleading precision.The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is given leave to amend the AmendedComplaint.

CROYDON DAY: More Hepatitis C Cases Linked to Class Action----------------------------------------------------------Timothy McDonald at ABC News reports that health officials saythere is strong evidence to suggest the number of women who havecontracted hepatitis C from a doctor in a day surgery inMelbourne's north-east has risen to 35.

And a lawyer bringing a class action over the outbreak says she ispuzzled authorities are not more worried about other clinics whereDr. James Peters worked.

Victoria's chief health officer, Dr. John Carnie, says it ishighly likely the women who tested positive for hepatitis Ccontracted it from Dr. Peters.

"In total, we have now had 58 women who have been found to bepositive for hepatitis C, and of these, 35 have hepatitis C virusthat appears to be genetically linked to the cluster," he said."That is, they appear to be very closely linked to the virus ofthe doctor who has been implicated as part of this outbreak."

The link between the Croydon Day Surgery and the cluster was firstrevealed in April, when there were only 12 cases.

Dr. Peters was suspended from practicing in February and VictoriaPolice and the Medical Practitioners Board are investigatingwhether or not the infections were intentional.

The outbreak is also the subject of a class action suit.

Slater and Gordon medical law expert Paula Shelton, Esq., isrepresenting those involved and says a lot more people may beaffected.

"From the numbers we initially had, the numbers of people who'vebeen tested and the number of people who were affected, certainlysuggested that we would have a lot more," she said.

"I guess from the point of view of the legal action, it justbecomes more and more improbable that there's an innocentexplanation for these infections."

She says the health department needs to explain why it hasconcerns about the Croydon Day Clinic but apparently has noconcerns about the other clinics where Dr Peters worked.

"This was a doctor who worked at a number of clinics as indeedmany anesthetists do, and yet only the patients of this clinichave been identified as being at risk," she said.

"Now there has to be a reason for that, and my clients ask meevery day what that is and I don't have anything to tell them."

Helen McNeil, the head of Hepatitis C Victoria, says she has noconcerns about infection control procedures in Victoria morebroadly.

"That's incredibly awful for these women who have been infected,but there's certainly no indication that there's more widespreadproblems," she said.

"This is an extremely isolated event with one particular healthpractitioner."

Others say the case shows there are problems and that theGovernment needs to rethink the way it regulates the medicalsystem.

"It never ceases to amaze me, the mistakes and things that go on,like this, but nothing happens," said Lorraine Long from theMedical Error Action Group.

"The malpractitioners are allowed to continue practicing and ifthey don't they'll just move interstate and get registrationthrough that medical board and continue on.

"They don't learn from their mistakes and there's no severegovernment control that will rein them in. And that's thefailure."

HALLIBURTON CO: Remains a Defendant in "Deepwater Horizon" Suits----------------------------------------------------------------Halliburton Company remains a defendant in more than 270 class-action complaints arising out of the incident involving DeepwaterHorizon, according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2010.

The semisubmersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank onApril 22, 2010 after an explosion and fire onboard the rig thatbegan on April 20. The Deepwater Horizon was owned by TransoceanLtd. and had been drilling the Macondo/MC252 exploration well inMississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for the leaseoperator, BP Exploration & Production, Inc., an indirect whollyowned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. Crude oil flowing from the well sitehas spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexicoand has reached the United States Gulf Coast. Efforts to containthe flow of hydrocarbons from the well are being led by the UnitedStates government and by BP p.l.c., BP Exploration, and theiraffiliates. In addition, there were eleven fatalities and anumber of injuries as a result of the Macondo Well incident. Thecause of the explosion, fire, and resulting oil spill is beinginvestigated by numerous industry participants, governmentalagencies, and Congressional committees.

The company performed a variety of services on the Macondo well,including cementing, mud logging, directional drilling,measurement-while-drilling, and rig data acquisition services.The company had completed the cementing of the final productioncasing string in accordance with BP Exploration's requirementsapproximately 20 hours prior to the Macondo Well incident.

Currently, the company has been named along with otherunaffiliated defendants in more than 270 class-action complaintsinvolving pollution damage claims and in 15 suits involvingmultiple plaintiffs that allege wrongful death and other personalinjuries arising out of the Macondo Well incident.

The pollution damage complaints generally allege, among otherthings, negligence and gross negligence, property damages, andpotential economic losses as a result of environmental pollutionand generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory,and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. The wrongfuldeath and other personal injury complaints generally allegenegligence and gross negligence and seek awards of compensatorydamages, including unspecified economic damages and punitivedamages.

The company has retained counsel and are investigating andevaluating the claims, the theories of recovery, damages asserted,and our respective defenses to all of these claims. The companysays that additional lawsuits may be filed against the company.

Halliburton Company -- http://www.halliburton.com/-- provides a variety of services and products to customers in the energyindustry related to the exploration, development, and productionof oil and natural gas. The company serves oil and natural gascompanies throughout the world and operates under two segments:the Completion and Production segment, and the Drilling andEvaluation segment. It conducts business worldwide inapproximately 70 countries. The business operations of itsdivisions are organized in four primary geographic regions: NorthAmerica, Latin America, Europe/Africa/CIS, and Middle East/Asia.

HALLIBURTON CO: AMSF Files Writ of Certiorari with Supreme Court----------------------------------------------------------------The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund has filed a writ ofcertiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court after the U.S. Fifth CircuitCourt of Appeals affirmed the ruling denying class certificationin a consolidated suit against Halliburton Company, according tothe company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,2010.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the companyin federal court alleging violations of the federal securitieslaws after the SEC initiated an investigation in connection withthe company's change in accounting for revenue on long-termconstruction projects and related disclosures.

In the weeks that followed, approximately 20 similar class actionswere filed against the company. Several of those lawsuits alsonamed as defendants several of the company's present or formerofficers and directors. The class action cases were laterconsolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint,styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., wasfiled and served upon the company in April 2003. As a result of asubstitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styledArchdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. HalliburtonCompany, et al. The company settled with the SEC in the secondquarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to filea second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by thecourt. In addition to restating the original accounting anddisclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaintincluded claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of DresserIndustries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company failedto timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and namedAMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a thirdconsolidated amended complaint and that the company file itsmotion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motionin August 2005, at which time the court took the motion underadvisement.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted themotion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claimswhile permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correctdeficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, AMSF filedits fourth amended consolidated complaint. The company filed amotion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had beenre-pled.

A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individualdefendants other than the company's Chief Executive Officer. Thecourt ordered that the case proceed against Halliburton and itsCEO.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,and the company's response was filed in November 2007. The courtheld a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008denying AMSF's motion for class certification.

AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appealsrequesting permission to appeal the district court's order denyingclass certification.

The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion. Both parties filedbriefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in December of2009. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's orderdenying class certification.

On May 13, 2010, AMSF filed a writ of certiorari in the UnitedStates Supreme Court. The brief in opposition to the petition forwrit of certiorari is due on Aug. 18, 2010.

Halliburton Company -- http://www.halliburton.com/-- provides a variety of services and products to customers in the energyindustry related to the exploration, development, and productionof oil and natural gas. The company serves oil and natural gascompanies throughout the world and operates under two segments:the Completion and Production segment, and the Drilling andEvaluation segment. It conducts business worldwide inapproximately 70 countries. The business operations of itsdivisions are organized in four primary geographic regions: NorthAmerica, Latin America, Europe/Africa/CIS, and Middle East/Asia.

HEWITT ASSOCIATES: Accused of Selling Company for Inadequate Price------------------------------------------------------------------IBEW Local 164 Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and otherssimilarly situated v. Hewitt Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.2010-CH-31612 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 23, 2010), accusesHewitt's Board of Directors of breaching their fiduciary duties tothe Company's public shareholders, in connection with theirdecision to consider the proposed acquisition of Hewitt by AonCorporation, a transaction which IBEW says is "a result of aflawed process and a grossly inadequate offer price".

IBEW Local relates that the proposed transaction not only deniesthe Company's shareholders adequate consideration, but also grantsbenefits to the individual defendants not equally shared by theCompany's public shareholders.

On July 12, 2010, 2010, Hewitt announced that it had entered intoan Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby Aon would acquire eachoutstanding share of Hewitt in exchange for $25.61 in cash plus0.6362 shares of Aon stock, in a transaction that valued Hewitt at$50 per share (roughly $4.9 billion), based on each company'sclosing price on July 9, 2010.

IBEW Local says the offer price is inadequate, undervalues Hewitt,and falls below analysts' expectations for the Company. Hewittstockholders will also miss out on the Company's good fortunes asthey will be relegated to a minor stake in the new entity. IBEWexplains that while Hewitt will be providing nearly 49% of therevenue for the combined entity, Hewitt shareholders will get onlyabout 19% of the shares of the new entity moving forward.

IBEW Local 164 Pension Fund is a stockholder of Hewitt, a globalhuman resources consulting and outsourcing company. Aon is aninsurance services holding company that provides risk andinsurance and brokerage services and consulting services.

On July 12, 2010, 2010, Hewitt announced that it had entered intoan Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby Aon would acquire eachoutstanding share of Hewitt in exchange for $25.61 in cash plus0.6362 shares of Aon stock, in a transaction that valued Hewitt at$50 per share (roughly $4.9 billion), based on each company'sclosing price on July 9, 2010.

Jean M. Calamore is a stockholder of Hewitt, a global humanresources consulting and outsourcing company. Aon is an insuranceservices holding company that provides risk and insurance andbrokerage services and consulting services.

Ms. Calamore says that the offer price of $50 per share isinadequate, undervalues Hewitt, and falls below analysts'expectations for the Company.

Hewitt stockholders will also miss out on the Company's goodfortunes as they will be relegated to a minor stake in the newentity. IBEW explains that while Hewitt will be providing nearly49% of the revenue for the combined entity, Hewitt shareholderswill get only about 19% of the shares of the new entity movingforward.

HIDALGO COUNTY: Sued Over Excessive Ticketing of Truant Students----------------------------------------------------------------Sergio Chapa, a reporter for ValleyCentral.com, reports that theAmerican Civil Liberties Union has filed a class action lawsuitagainst all nine justices of the peace regarding the way theyhandle truancy cases in Hidalgo County.

The lawsuit against the JPs, Sheriff Lupe Trevino and HidalgoCounty was filed in McAllen federal court late Monday afternoon.

Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that HidalgoCounty violates the constitutional rights of truant teenagers byjailing them for their inability to pay fines from missing school,the class action claims. "Since January 2009, approximately 150teens served time in Hidalgo County jail that may be attributed tounpaid fines for failure to attend school or other school-relatedmisdemeanor offenses that are not supposed to be punishable byjail time," the lawsuit states.

The policy purportedly applies to teens aged 17 and older, but theclass claims many teens are ticketed "long before they turn 17,the age when adult criminal responsibility attaches in Texas."

Lead plaintiffs Francisco De Luna and Elizabeth Luna, both 18, saythey spent 18 days in the Hidalgo County Adult Detention Facilityfor truancy tickets they received when they were only 13 and 14years old.

Hidalgo County's sheriff and its magistrates create a "school-to-prison pipeline" by routing truant students through the juvenilejustice system, a "significant predictor of involvement with theadult criminal justice system," the class claims.

"Rather than increasing the likelihood that such students willcomplete school and graduate, excessive ticketing for failure toattend school, and aggressive enforcement of such tickets bycourts, often drives students to drop out," the class says.

"Texas law permits and encourages the assessment of multiple finesof up to $500 per ticket against students for failure to attendschool," the students add. "[B]etween 2005 and 2009, the numberof truancy or failure to attend school charges filed by Texasschools increased 40 percent, from about 85,000 to 12,000.

"Excessive ticketing for school-related conduct can quickly amountto thousands of dollars in fines and places an onerous burden onlow-income families," the lawsuit states.

The median per capita income in Hidalgo County is $9,899, and 45.1percent of children ages 18 and under live in poverty, accordingto the complaint.

The county's magistrates violate students' due-process rights bynot considering their inability to pay before sending them tojail, the class claims.

The magistrates also fail to offer indigent students the optionsof paying their fines in installments or discharging their debtthrough community service, the class says.

HONEYCUTT TEAR: Accused of Failing to Pay for Overtime------------------------------------------------------Jorge Vargas, individually, and on behalf of other members of thegeneral public similarly situated v. Honeycutt Tear Off, Case No.2010-00390741 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. July 16, 2010),accuses the construction company of failing to pay overtime wages,failing to provide itemized wage statements, failing to pay allwages dues at the time of termination, failing to provide restbreaks and meal periods, failing to pay all wages due (employeeswere made to work off the clock); and engaging in unfair practicesin violation of the California Business and Professions Codesection 17200 et. seq.

HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Remaining Claims in Allen Suit-------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International, Inc., continues to defend the remainingclaims in the matter Allen, et al. v. Honeywell RetirementEarnings Plan, according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2010.

Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court forthe District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims allegedby plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit were dismissed withprejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million and themaximum aggregate liability for the remaining three claims(alleging that Honeywell impermissibly reduced the pensionbenefits of certain employees of a predecessor entity when theplan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate benefits inaccordance with the terms of the plan) was capped at $500 million.

Any amounts payable, including the settlement amount, have or willbe paid from the company's pension plan. In October 2009, theCourt granted summary judgment in favor of the HoneywellRetirement Earnings Plan with respect to the claim regarding thecalculation of benefits.

The company says it continues to expect to prevail on theremaining claims in light of applicable law and our substantialaffirmative defenses, which have not yet been considered fully bythe Court.

HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Automotive Filter Suit in Connecticut--------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International, Inc., defends a consolidated suitalleging that it engaged in a conspiracy with other filtermanufacturers to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customersfor after-market automotive filters, according to the company'sJuly 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filedsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticutalleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell,engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.customers for aftermarket automotive filters.

This suit is a purported class action on behalf of directpurchasers of filters from the defendants. Parallel purportedclass actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers offilters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety ofjurisdictions in the United States and Canada.

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-districtlitigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S.A. and sold throughHusqvarna authorized dealers nationwide from January 2010 to May2010 for about $3,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ridingtractors and contact Husqvarna to arrange a free repair. For moreinformation or to schedule a free repair, contact Husqvarna toll-free at (877) 257-6921 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., EasternTime, Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.,Eastern Time, Saturday. Consumers can also visit the firm's Website at http://www.husqvarna.us/july2010Alert

IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend "Price-Fixing" Suits-----------------------------------------------------Immucor, Inc., continues to defend a series of class actionlawsuits alleging the company, along with other defendants,conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold,according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal yearended May 31, 2010.

All of these complaints make substantially the same allegations.The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court forthe Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There has been no discoveryand no determination has been made whether any of the plaintiffs'claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed as a classaction.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- Immucor manufactures and sells a complete line of reagents and systems used byhospitals, reference laboratories and donor centers to detect andidentify certain properties of the cell and serum components ofblood prior to transfusion. Immucor markets a complete family ofautomated instrumentation for all of its market segments.

IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Georgia-----------------------------------------------------------Immucor, Inc., continues to defend the matter In re Immucor, Inc.Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-2351-TWT, pendingin the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal yearended May 31, 2010.

A private securities litigation was filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt of North Georgia against the company and certain of itscurrent and former directors and officers asserts federalsecurities fraud claims on behalf of a putative class ofpurchasers of the company's Common Stock between Oct. 19, 2005 andJune 25, 2009.

The case alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, byfailing to disclose that Immucor had violated the antitrust laws,and challenges the sufficiency of the Company's disclosures aboutthe results of FDA inspections and the company's quality controlefforts. There has been no discovery and no determination hasbeen made whether any of the plaintiffs' claims have merit orshould be allowed to proceed as a class action.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- Immucor manufactures and sells a complete line of reagents and systems used byhospitals, reference laboratories and donor centers to detect andidentify certain properties of the cell and serum components ofblood prior to transfusion. Immucor markets a complete family ofautomated instrumentation for all of its market segments.

KNIGHT-BARRY: Sued for Improperly Collecting Mortgage Fees----------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that Knight-Barry Title Inc., oneof Wisconsin's largest title companies, tacks on extra fees forfiling mortgage releases without performing the services, a classaction claims in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.

Mark S. Haltzman, lead attorney for student Blake Robbins, asked afederal judge Monday to order the Lower Merion School District topay $418,850.60 while the case is pending.

The request comes on top of expenses -- estimated in June at$780,000 -- Lower Merion has covered for outside lawyers andcomputer experts since the lawsuit over privacy violations wasfiled Feb. 16.

The court, Mr. Haltzman wrote, has already ordered the district toend the monitoring of students' school-issued laptops' cameras, asMr. Robbins requested when the lawsuit was filed Feb. 16.

Since Mr. Robbins' side is now a "prevailing party," it isentitled to have the district pay some of the outstanding bills,Mr. Haltzman wrote. Under federal law, a successful civil-rightsplaintiff can recover attorneys' fees and other costs of going tocourt from the losing side.

Mr. Haltzman said in an interview he had not planned to ask U.S.District Judge Jan E. DuBois to order a payout in the middle ofthe case. He said he expected fees would be paid out of asettlement in a class-action suit that covered all Lower Merionstudents monitored through their computers. But the school systemchallenged the class-action status, setting in motion apotentially long process to decide who is covered in the case.

"That could be a year down the road," Mr. Haltzman said, addingthat his was a small firm that "can't afford to carry" the case.

Henry E. Hockeimer Jr., Esq., who is representing the district,said he could not yet say whether the district would contest Mr.Haltzman's request.

"We'll respond to it at the appropriate time and in theappropriate way," Mr. Hockeimer said.

In a breakdown of the costs provided to the court, lawyers' feesaccount for $316,707, with $201,280 -- nearly half -- described asthe cost of Mr. Haltzman's time, at $425 an hour.

The next-largest charge is an $87,925 expense for a computer-consulting company.

Mr. Robbins, 16 and a sophomore at Harriton High School when thesuit was filed, and his family claim their privacy rights wereviolated when the district's technicians remotely turned on thecamera on his school-issued Apple MacBook as part of a securitypolicy designed to track computers.

The district has acknowledged that more than 58,000 photos andscreen shots were captured from students' computers while theremote-monitoring policy was in place. More than half the images,the district has said, resulted from technicians' forgetting toturn off monitoring software after computers were recovered.

An internal investigation found that the remote-monitoringsoftware had been used to activate laptop webcams 76 times in twoyears and that no evidence suggested students had been spied upon.

A proposal introduced at a district meeting July 19 would banlaptop webcam monitoring.

Mr. Borgioli, who was hired to perform home inspection services byMadrissa Group in February 2010, says that Madrissa Groupmaintained a policy of paying inspectors at piece rates forcompleted work orders, mainly resulting from the mis-classification of employees as independent contractors.

MCGRAW-HILL COS: Faces Second Amended Complaint in New York-----------------------------------------------------------The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., faces a second amended complaintalleging violations of federal securities laws in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York, according tothe company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedJune 30, 2010.

A putative shareholder class-action lawsuit captioned Reese v.Bahash, Case No. 1:2007-cv-01530, was filed on Aug. 28, 2007, inthe U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia againstRobert Bahash, the chief financial officer of the company,alleging claims under the federal securities laws and state tortlaw concerning Standard & Poor's ratings, particularly its ratingsof subprime mortgage-backed securities. Mr. Bahash was not servedwith the complaint.

On Feb. 11, 2008, the District Court in the case entered an orderappointing a lead plaintiff and permitting plaintiffs to amend thecomplaint on or before April 16, 2008.

On April 7, 2008, the District Court granted the application ofthe lead plaintiff to extend the deadline for its amendment of thecomplaint to May 7, 2008.

An amended complaint was filed alleging violations of the federalsecurities laws. The company and another individual was named asadditional defendants.

The Amended Complaint asserts, among other things, that thedefendants failed to warn investors that problems in thestructured finance market, particularly the sub-prime lendingmarket, would negatively affect the company's financialperformance. Service of the Amended Complaint was thereaftereffectuated.

On June 18, 2008, in response to a Consent Motion filed on behalfof the company and the individual defendants, the District Courtentered an order transferring the action to the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the District Court denied Lead Plaintiff's motionto lift the discovery stay imposed by the Private SecuritiesLitigation Reform Act in order to obtain documents S&P submittedto the SEC during the SEC's examination.

The Court granted a motion by plaintiffs permitting the plaintiffsto amend the complaint on June 29, 2010 and the Second AmendedComplaint was filed on July 1, 2010.

The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is a global information services provider serving the financialservices, education and business information markets with a rangeof information products and services. The company's marketsinclude energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and marketinginformation services. In March 2007, Standard & Poor's, adivision of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the sale of itsmutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc. As part of thetransaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund data fromMorningstar. The company serves its customers through a range ofdistribution channels, including printed books, magazines andnewsletters, online via Internet Websites and digital platforms,through wireless and traditional on-air broadcasting, and througha range of conferences and trade shows. The company's books andmagazines are printed by third parties.

MCGRAW-HILL COS: Appeal of Plaintiffs on Suits Dismissal Pending----------------------------------------------------------------The appeal of the plaintiffs in two putative class actions on thedismissal of their suits against The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc.,alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income SecurityAct, remains pending, according to the company's July 23, 2010,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Sept. 10, 2008, a putative shareholder class action titledPatrick Gearren, et al. v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al.was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofNew York against the company, its Board of Directors, its PensionInvestment Committee and the administrator of its pension plans.

The Complaint alleged that the defendants breached fiduciaryduties to participants in the company's ERISA plans by allowingparticipants to continue to invest in Company stock as aninvestment option under the plans during a period when plaintiffsallege the company's stock price to have been artificiallyinflated.

The Complaint also asserted that defendants breached fiduciaryduties under ERISA by making certain material misrepresentationsand non-disclosures concerning the ratings business in plancommunications and the Company's SEC filings.

A virtually identical complaint was filed on June 12, 2009, in anaction titled Sullivan v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. et al.,Case No. 09-CV-5450, in the Southern District of New York.

On Feb. 10, 2010, both actions were dismissed in their entiretyfor failure to state a claim under applicable law.

The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is a global information services provider serving the financialservices, education and business information markets with a rangeof information products and services. The company's marketsinclude energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and marketinginformation services. In March 2007, Standard & Poor's, adivision of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the sale of itsmutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc. As part of thetransaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund data fromMorningstar. The company serves its customers through a range ofdistribution channels, including printed books, magazines andnewsletters, online via Internet Websites and digital platforms,through wireless and traditional on-air broadcasting, and througha range of conferences and trade shows. The company's books andmagazines are printed by third parties.

MILLERCOORS: Calif. Suit Complains About Mail-in Rebate Program---------------------------------------------------------------Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that beergiant MillerCoors maximized its profits on a $6 mail-in rebate oncases of beer by making the rebate instructions "illegible formost consumers," a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Stacy Wishner says she bought a case of Coors Lightbased on the mail-in rebate, but found the instructions toocomplicated and tiny to read. She says MillerCoors and CVSPharmacy boldly advertise that consumers can save up to $6 onCoors and Miller beer, but attach only a 2-by-3-inch rebate formto each box, "even smaller than an average business card."

Even if the instructions could be easily read, the class claims,the rebate process is so convoluted that those who attempt tofollow through will most likely have their rebates denied becauseof a missing attachment or bit of information.

"The mail-in rebate program constitutes an unfair and unlawfulbait-and-switch tactic," the complaint states.

The whole process is "unnecessarily burdensome," the class claims.

MillerCoors is the second-largest brewing company in the UnitedStates, producing about 500 million gallons of beer a year. CVS,which is under contract with the brewer, is one of the largestretail pharmacy chains in the country.

Coors has been in hot water with consumers before for allegedlyissuing invalid sweepstake prize codes on its products. In thatlawsuit, consumers said the brewer continued to promote thecontest even after it knew about the flaw.

Ms. Wishner and the class demand an injunction, punitive damages,restitution and disgorgement for conversion, breach of contract,breach of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, false advertising,and violations of consumer and business laws.

A copy of the Complaint in Wishner v. MillerCoors, LLC, et al.,Case No. 10-cv-05295 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Stipulation Approval in Tenn. Suit Pending--------------------------------------------------------------The approval of a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice in aconsolidated class-action against Mueller Industries, Inc.,brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of copper tubes used in,among other things, the manufacturing of air-conditioning andrefrigeration units (ACR copper tubes), remains pending in theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedJune 26, 2010.

Two copper tube actions were commenced in June and August 2006 inthe U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee andwere consolidated to become the Indirect-Purchaser ACR TubeAction.

In general, the copper tube actions allege anticompetitiveactivities with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes(copper plumbing tubes). These suits are seeking monetary andother relief.

The company and Mueller Europe are named in the Indirect-PurchaserACR Tube Action. The company and Mueller Europe have been served,but have not yet been required to respond to the claims.

On July 9, 2010, all parties to the Indirect-Purchaser ACR TubeAction filed with the court a Stipulation for Dismissal withPrejudice and related motion pursuant to which the parties seek adismissal with prejudice of the Indirect-Purchaser ACR TubeAction. The Stipulation and Motion remain pending before thecourt.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/-- manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other products.The range of these products include copper tube and fittings;brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum and brassforgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic pipe,fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; fabricatedtubular products; and steel nipples. The company also resellsimported brass and plastic plumbing valves, malleable ironfittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products. Mueller'soperations are located throughout the U.S., and in Canada, Mexico,Great Britain, and China. The company's operates through twosegments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and the OriginalEquipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.

MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Copper Tube Action in California Dismissed--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Californiahas dismissed the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action againstMueller Industries, Inc., according to the company's July 23,2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 26, 2010.

The copper tube action, which the company calls as the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action, was filed in July 2006, and is apurported class action brought on behalf of indirect purchasers ofcopper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes in the U.S. and allegesanticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of both copperplumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes. It seeks monetary and otherrelief.

The California Stipulation sought a court order of dismissal and,on April 29, 2010, the court dismissed the case in its entiretywith prejudice.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/-- manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other products.The range of these products include copper tube and fittings;brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum and brassforgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic pipe,fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; fabricatedtubular products; and steel nipples. The company also resellsimported brass and plastic plumbing valves, malleable ironfittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products. Mueller'soperations are located throughout the U.S., and in Canada, Mexico,Great Britain, and China. The company's operates through twosegments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and the OriginalEquipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.

The case alleges violations of the Unfair Competition Lawpredicated on alleged violations of the Insurance Code and LaborCode. The trial court resolved the causes of action implicatingthe Labor Code by an order granting defendant's motion for summaryadjudication of issues; the court resolved the causes of actioninvolving the Insurance Code by an order granting a motion forjudgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. The currentappeal was taken from a final judgment incorporating both rulings

Pacific Rim Transport, Inc., operated a business that transportedclients' cargo into and out of the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beachand San Diego. PRTI did not own any trucks. Instead, it enteredinto written agreements with the "owner-operators" of trucks whichprovided that an owner-operator would lease a truck to PRTI, andthat PRTI would pay the owner-operator for making deliveries ofcargo, using PRTI's ostensibly leased truck, to destinationsdesignated by PRTI. The lease agreements provided that the owner-operator of a truck, as the lessor, would pay the costs ofmaintaining and operating the leased truck, including the cost ofliability insurance.

In March 2003, Pedro Perez filed a class action complaint againstPRTI. Perez's original complaint alleged two causes of action. Thefirst alleged a violation of the UCL based on alleged violationsof Insurance Code sections 35, 1631, 1633, and 1733, or, incolloquial terms, for "transacting insurance without a license."The second, labeled "common count for damages," largely restatedPerez's claim that PRTI was transacting insurance without alicense.

In June 2007, the trial court certified a class of 587 owner-operators described as: "All persons and entities in Californiathat provided trucking services, including the transport of cargoand freight, for [PRTI] from March 28, 1999 through the present,and who had money deducted from their earnings by [PRTI] to payfor insurance coverage, obtained by [PRTI], for those persons andentities."

Mr. Perez filed a first amended complaint adding two new causes ofaction to his lawsuit. The added third cause of action allegedPerez was an employee and that PRTI failed to indemnify him forliability insurance, in violation of Labor Code sections 2802 and2804. The added fourth cause of action alleged that PRTI hadviolated the UCL based on the alleged violation of the Labor Code.

Mr. Perez contends the trial court's order granting PRTI's motionfor summary adjudication of issues of his third and fourth causesof action -- which involved the issue of his status as anindependent contractor -- must be reversed because the evidencepresented in the context of PRTI's motion for SAI established thathe "was PRTI's employee." The California Court of Appeals agreeswith Mr. Perez that the trial court should not have summarilyadjudged him an independent contractor.

Mr. Novotny alleges that over the course of using the television,the contrast ratios decrease and the image quality deteriorates.Mr. Novotny says that Panasonic has not offered to issue refundsor provide replacement TVs to purchasers of the 2008-2010Panasonic Viera Plasma TVs. Mr. Novotny relates that bymisrepresenting the quality of the 2008-2010 Panasonic Viera TVs,Panasonic also violated California consumer laws and engaged inunfair business practices under California Business andProfessions Code Section 17200.

REDLANDS COMMUNITY: Former Employees Win Class Action Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------------Jesse B. Gill, staff writer for The Sun, reports that a group offormer Redlands Community Hospital employees won a class-actionlawsuit claiming they are owed millions in unpaid wages andovertime.

The lawsuit, naming about 1,000 workers, alleged the hospitallowered the base pay of employees working 12-hour shifts after a1999 state law passed requiring overtime pay for employees workingmore than eight hours in a single day.

Although the jury ruled in favor of the class-action suit, thehospital won't have to pay nearly the original amount sought.

The lawsuit sought damages near $18 million.

"Obviously, Redlands Community Hospital is disappointed in thejury's decision in the litigation about its wage and overtimecompliance," Kathi Sankey-Robinson, vice president of thehospital's business development and marketing department, wroteMonday in a statement. "The hospital, however, is pleased to havereceived minimum damages of only $55,000 in overtime wages and$38,000 in interest."

Hospital management believes pertinent evidence was left out ofits end of the case, Ms. Sankey-Robinson wrote.

The state Labor and Workforce Development Agency cleared thehospital of any violations of the state overtime law in 2007. Theagency's letter to the hospital was omitted in the court case.

"We remain perplexed as to why the judge did not allow thisevidence -- the state's own report and approval of our wage andovertime regulations -- as part of our case," Ms. Sankey-Robinsonwrote.

Hospital management discussed the 1999 legislation with its staffafter it passed, she wrote. Staff members had the choice of votingto keep their 12-hour shifts or switching to eight-hour shifts andopted to keep the 12-hour shifts.

"To accommodate the staff, the hospital adjusted the rate of payfor those working 12-hour shifts to allow for the state-mandatedovertime," Ms. Sankey-Robinson wrote. "Redlands (CommunityHospital) thus complied with the law."

When the hospital lowered the base pay of employees, the suitclaimed the move meant employees ended up with the same pay asbefore the law was passed.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Dismissed as Defendant in Suit Over Art Sale-------------------------------------------------------------Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. has been dismissed as a defendant inone suit being brought on a class action basis relating to artworksold at shipboard art auctions, according to the company's July23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

There are a total of five cases pending in the U.S. District Courtfor the Western District of Washington against Park WestGalleries, Inc., doing business as Park West Gallery, PWG Florida,Inc., Fine Art Sales, Inc., Vista Fine Art LLC, doing business asPark West At Sea, and other named and unnamed parties, includingRoyal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Celebrity Cruises Inc. and otherunaffiliated cruise line companies.

The actions are being brought on behalf of purchasers of artworkat shipboard art auctions conducted by Park West on the namedcruise lines. One of these actions is being brought on a classaction basis. The substance of the claims in all five actions isvirtually the same. The suits allege that the artwork Park Westsells is not what it represents to its customers and that RoyalCaribbean Cruises Ltd., Celebrity Cruises Inc. and other namedcruise lines are complicit in the activities of Park West,including engaging in a conspiracy with Park West in violation ofthe Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and arebeing enriched unjustly from the sale of the artwork.

The actions seek from the named defendants refund and restitutionof all monies acquired from the sale of artwork at shipboardauctions, recovery for the amount of payments for the purchasedartwork, damages on the RICO claims in an indeterminate amount,permitted statutory damages and unspecified equitable orinjunctive relief. The suits also seek from certain non-RoyalCaribbean parties additional statutory, breach of contract andbreach of warranty damages in unspecified amounts.

In June 2010, the Court dismissed Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. andCelebrity Cruises Inc. from all five actions on the basis that theclaims against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Celebrity CruisesInc. were not timely filed and/or properly pled.

Plaintiffs have since filed motions seeking permission from theCourt to amend their complaints to address the noted deficienciesand to rename Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Celebrity CruisesInc. as defendants in the actions.

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. -- http://www.royalcaribbean.com/-- is a global cruise vacation company that operates Royal CaribbeanInternational, Celebrity Cruises, Pullmantur, Azamara ClubCruises, CDF Croisieres de France, and TUI Cruises through a 50%joint venture. The company has a combined total of 39 ships inservice and three under construction. It also offers unique land-tour vacations in Alaska, Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, LatinAmerica and New Zealand.

Mr. Abadi says the individual defendants breached their fiduciaryduties by, among other means, diverting business opportunitiesfrom Royal Items, wasting and misappropriating corporate assets bypurchasing goods that have no bearing on Royal Items' business,ignoring the conflicts of interests in owning shares and/ormanaging Royal Deluxe Accessories LLC (an entity formed by theindividual defendants and engaged in the same or similar businessas Royal Items), and transferring or preparing to transfer RoyalItems' assets to another corporation.

The individual defendants further breached their fiduciary dutiesby putting their own interests ahead of the shareholders, failingto maximize shareholder value, acting in bad faith, and willfullycausing Royal Items to violate state and federal statutes.

Mr. Abadi owns 20% of the shares of common stock of Royal Items, acorporation engaged in the importation and selling of costumejewelry, women's and children's hair accessories, brushes, combs,mirrors, teen and children's cosmetics and novelty items.

STANDARD & POOR'S: Australian Councils Launch Class Action----------------------------------------------------------Clancy Yeates at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that localAustralian councils are launching a legal fight against Standard &Poor's rating agency that stamped the highest possible creditrating on complex securities that unraveled during the globalfinancial crisis.

Standard & Poor's is facing the $16 million class action from 12councils that lost millions after buying assets it rated as AAA,which were sold through the investment bank ABN Amro.

The claim, to be lodged in the Federal Court this week, willallege investors were misled because of flaws in S&P's ratingsmethod.

It is the first Australian class action to target a rating agencyfor its role in spreading complex structured debt products, whichhave left dozens of councils and charities out of pocket.

It follows similar claims against big rating agencies in theUnited States, where S&P and Moody's have unsuccessfully arguedthey were protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution-- freedom of speech.

Spearheaded by the law firm Piper Alderman and funded by IMF(Australia), the claim will allege two other rating agenciesrefused to rate the product -- known as Rembrandt -- that S&Pdeemed worthy of AAA status.

A partner at Piper Alderman, Amanda Banton, Esq., said the classaction would also allege negligence and misleading and deceptiveconduct on the part of S&P.

Ms. Banton said there were flaws in the rating method, and thefinal product did not have the characteristics of an AAA-ratedsecurity. "It's really an example of ratings gone mad," Ms.Banton said. "This particular product should never have been ratedAAA. It's apparent that a number of other ratings agencies in factrefused to rate it."

According to S&P, an AAA rating means the product or issuer inquestion has an "extremely strong capacity to meet financialcommitments."

But as credit market conditions deteriorated in the financialcrisis, the councils lost close to 90› in the dollar from theRembrandt notes, a type of product known as constant proportiondebt obligations.

The claim comes after the councils also sued Local GovernmentFinancial Services, which invests council staff superannuation.

LGFS, which bought $45 million of the assets in 2006 and 2007, hasfiled a cross claim against the rating agency and ABN Amro.

A spokeswoman for S&P would not discuss the claim. "We cannotcomment on legal matters," she said. A spokeswoman for ABN Amro,now known as RBS, said the bank would "vigorously defend" claimsfrom the councils and LGFS.

In response to many products' collapse, regulators around theworld have tried to make rating agencies more accountable fortheir actions.

The big three -- S&P, Moody's and Fitch -- no longer rate retailproducts in Australia after the corporate regulator made themliable for ratings published in prospectus documents. New US lawshave also made agencies liable for the ratings they publish.

THERATECHNOLOGIES: Ex-Shareholder to Launch Class Action--------------------------------------------------------Theratechnologies said Monday that it has received from 121851Canada Inc., formerly a shareholder of the Company, a motion ofauthorization to institute a class action against the Company andcertain of its executive officers. This motion was filed in theSuperior Court of Quebec, district of Montreal. This personintends to initiate a class action to represent the class ofpersons who were shareholders at May 21, 2010 and who sold theircommon shares of the Company on May 25 or 26, 2010. This personalleges that Theratechnologies did not comply with its continuousdisclosure obligations as a reporting issuer by failing todisclose a material change.

Theratechnologies is of the view that the allegations contained inthe motion are frivolous and entirely without merit and intends totake all appropriate actions to vigorously defend its position.

Theratechnologies is a Canadian biopharmaceutical company.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over Prius Headlights------------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat a federal judge in Los Angeles refused on Monday to throw outa class action against Toyota Motor Corp. over defectiveheadlights on their Prius vehicles.

The case alleges that Toyota failed to inform consumers that theheadlights on recent-model Priuses can sporadically turn on andoff, creating a safety hazard.

U.S. District Judge Manuel Real concluded that the plaintiffssufficiently allege that the defect could pose an "unreasonablesafety risk" to consumers.

The claims are unrelated to separate allegations involving suddenunintended acceleration; Toyota recalled more than 8 millionvehicles and faces more than 200 lawsuits in multidistrictlitigation involving those alleged defects.

"Lots of people feel this is a safety hazard," said MelissaHarnett, a partner at Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten inLos Angeles, one of the plaintiffs lawyers in the headlight case,following arguments on Monday. "We think it's just as much of asafety defect [as the acceleration problem] because the lawrequires operating headlights."

The suit, which was filed in May 2009, is one of three classactions pending against Toyota over defective Prius headlights. Asecond action, filed on Feb. 16, has been joined with the first. Athird case, filed in August 2009, is pending in Los AngelesCounty, Calif., Superior Court.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a proposed class of consumerswho purchased the optional high-intensity discharge, or HID,headlight system for their 2006 through 2010 Priuses. The standardPrius is equipped with halogen headlights.

Although Toyota has not acknowledged the headlight failures, morethan 1,000 consumers have filed complaints with the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration, according to the amendedcomplaint, which was filed in December 2009. The agency opened apreliminary investigation but declined to order a recall,according to the amended complaint.

The suit alleges that dealerships, upon learning of the problem,either have done nothing or replaced the headlight systems with"equally defective parts" at costs of up to $1,800.

Meanwhile, they claim, the headlights present a considerablesafety risk to consumers.

"These intermittent headlight failures are repeated andunpredictable, resulting in a great deal of confusion and concernfor Prius owners," plaintiffs attorneys wrote in their amendedcomplaint. "Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, expect andassume that a vehicle's headlights are safe and will not suddenlyand repeatedly shut off during use."

The suit seeks restitution for a nationwide class underCalifornia's Unfair Competition Law and its Consumers LegalRemedies Act.

In a motion to dismiss, Toyota's lawyers argued that most of thealleged defects occurred at least one year after the plaintiffspurchased their vehicles -- often after the warranty periodexpired.

"Although not expressly alleged, Plaintiffs apparently believethat their HID headlights should operate for some undisclosedperiod of time beyond Toyota's express warranty coveringPlaintiffs' Prius vehicles," Toyota's lawyers wrote in theirdismissal motion. "Toyota brings this Motion to Dismiss becauseheadlights are clearly maintenance parts on a vehicle that have afinite life and will likely fail at some point during the usefullife of the vehicles; and thus, Plaintiffs' claims are fatallyflawed."

Toyota's lawyers questioned the risks posed by headlight failures.

"Headlight failure, while posing a potential safety risk if suchfailure involves both headlights simultaneously at night, does notpresent an unreasonably dangerous condition because headlightfailure is a known and inevitable risk that every vehicle operatoraccepts when operating any vehicle with any type of headlight atnight," they wrote. (Italics in the original.)

A lawyer for Toyota, Michael Mallow, a partner in the Los Angelesoffice of Loeb & Loeb, declined to comment.

"The story is not the firings so much as the document upon whichthe firings are based," Mr. Parker said. "It is a flaweddocument."

He derided the "euphoric" reaction of observers and news reportsnationwide, saying he's "never seen a superintendent receive lessscrutiny than Chancellor [Michelle] Rhee."

"There's this sense that since [other superintendents] haven'tbeen able to do something like this, she must be right," he said."They assume that if she's firing people, they must be poorteachers."

The document in question is the D.C. Public Schools' teacher andstaff evaluation tool, called Impact, which rates teachers from"highly effective" to "ineffective." An "ineffective" score left185 of the system's 4,300 teachers without a job in the fall --about 10 times the average number of firings in similarly sizeddistricts. Another 56 teachers were let go for licensure problems.

Fired teachers can file grievances if the process of theirevaluation was flawed -- for example, if they received only fourobservations instead of the required five. They cannot filegrievances based on the outcome of the evaluations.

Ms. Rhee said her team intentionally did not fire teachers whoseprocess they knew to be flubbed -- leaving the union with littleroom for remedy.

The class-action suit would address what Mr. Parker sees as theunfair pieces of the evaluation tool, developed by Ms. Rhee'scentral office team without union input. It will be filed as soonas D.C. Public Schools releases to the union a list of the firedteachers, he said.

Mr. Parker is especially miffed that 5 percent of a teacher'soverall score is based on the performance of his or her school.

"A teacher's evaluation should be based on what he or she cancontrol," he said.

He also condemned the speedy implementation of Impact, saying oneyear was not adequate for teachers and evaluators to fullyunderstand the expectations. Mr. Parker pointed to a surveycompleted in the winter of about 1,000 union teachers whooverwhelmingly disapproved of Impact. About 80 percent of thosewho returned surveys scored "effective" or "highly effective," Mr.Parker said.

"They would've had every reason to say this was a great document,and they didn't."

Jason Kamras, 2005 National Teacher of the Year and the DCPSofficial responsible for Impact's implementation, argued that theprogram offers one of the most comprehensive and high-qualityevaluations in the country, and was developed with the input ofnearly 1,000 teachers and principals. "It becomes the engine ofchange for the school system," he said.

"We were able to successfully argue that the Supreme Court'sruling prevented a class action firm from getting around bindingarbitration agreements that were clearly presented to students atthe college."

The July 16th ruling by Arbitrator William H. Baker involvingWestwood College is the first in the nation to rely on the highcourt's ground-breaking decision.

Attorneys from the Miami, Florida law firm HomerBonnersuccessfully argued that arbitration agreements signed by studentsof Westwood College upon admission precluded a class actionarbitration.

In April's precedent-setting high court decision, a class actioncase was brought against international shipping firm Stolt-Nielsenby customer Animalfeeds. As part of their contract, both companiessigned an arbitration agreement to cover legal disputes. TheSupreme Court ruled in favor of Stolt-Nielsen in a closely watchedanti-trust case that is starting to have broad effects onarbitration. It held that imposing class arbitration on partiesthat haven't agreed to class arbitration conflicts with theFederal Arbitration Act, countering the overwhelming majority ofarbitral decisions that have concluded just the opposite.

"We were able to successfully argue that the Supreme Court'sruling prevented a class action firm from getting around bindingarbitration agreements that were clearly presented to students atthe college," said Mr. Homer. "This has never been a case aboutstudent issues or the quality of education. For Westwood College,those issues are easy to defend and have never been in question.Let's be clear, this was an attempt by a class action firm to reaplarge fees through class arbitration."

"Westwood has always been and will continue to be open toresolving any legitimate issue that a current or former studentmay have," said Westwood's Chief Legal Counsel Bill Ojile. "And,in the rare instance in which the College is unable to reach amutually satisfactory resolution with a student, we are willing toresolve the matter expeditiously by individual arbitration."

In March 2010, Westwood filed a defamation case against theplaintiffs' firm who sought the class action status, James, Hoyer,Newcomer, Smiljanich & Yanchunis, for what it believes were publictactics via social and traditional media designed intentionally tomislead current and prospective students. Westwood will continueto pursue that case.

About Homer Bonner

HomerBonner -- http://www.HomerBonner.com/-- is a boutique law firm in Miami, Florida founded in 1986, focusing on complexlitigation and commercial transactions. Among its numerous areasof practice, HomerBonner's education law practice is one of themost extensive in the country. The firm represents a variety ofcolleges and universities, including public and private two-yearand four-year institutions of higher education, from small liberalarts colleges to large universities.

About Westwood College

Westwood College -- http://www.Westwood.edu/-- is an institution of higher learning with 17 campuses across the country, as well asa large online school. Westwood offers a unique hands-on, career-focused curriculum providing three-year bachelor's degrees in in-demand fields. More than 20,000 Westwood graduates havetransformed their lives by obtaining the skills, tools, experienceand connections necessary to achieve meaningful careers. WestwoodCollege is accredited by the Accrediting Commission of CareerSchools and Colleges (ACCSC) and the Accrediting Council forIndependent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), depending on the campus.Westwood is also a candidate for regional accreditation from theHigher Learning Commission of the North Central Association ofColleges and Schools.

Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Reserves $53MM at June 30 for Claims----------------------------------------------------------------Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,had reserved about US$53 million at June 30, 2010 and US$49million at Dec. 31, 2009 in total for asbestos-related bodilyinjury claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filedon July 22, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated withasbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilitiesthat are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned byother Company units, Commonwealth Edison Company and PECO EnergyCompany.

As of June 30, 2010, about US$15 million of the US$53 millionrelated to 171 open claims presented to Generation, while theremaining US$38 million of the reserve is for estimated futureasbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through2050.

During the three months ended June 30, 2010, Generation increasedits reserve by about US$4 million, primarily due to an increase inforecasted claims.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $2.6-Bil Net Reserves at June 30---------------------------------------------------------------The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos-related reserves wereUS$2.593 billion as of June 30, 2010, according to a Companyreport, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on July 22, 2010.

During the first quarter of 2010, the Company's asbestos-relatedreserves were US$2.684 million.

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid were US$165 million in thefirst six months of 2010, compared with US$123 million in the sameperiod of 2009.

The increase in paid losses in 2010 reflected the final payment ofa previously reserved settlement.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property casualty insurancefor auto, home and business. A component of the Dow JonesIndustrial Average, the Company has more than 30,000 employees andgenerated revenues of about US$25 billion in 2009. The Company isbased in New York.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Still Subject to Coverage Claims----------------------------------------------------------------The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Travelers PropertyCasualty Corp. (TPC), continues to be involved in asbestos-relatedinsurance lawsuits that are pending in various courts.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed againstTPC and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc.(SPC)) in state court in West Virginia. These and other casessubsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into asingle proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va.

The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged inunfair trade practices in violation of state statutes byinappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. Similarlawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of asbestosclaims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts. Thesesuits are collectively referred to as the Statutory and HawaiiActions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actionspending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia statecourt amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties tocertain users of asbestos products. Lawsuits seeking similarrelief and raising similar allegations, primarily violations ofpurported common law duties to third parties, have also beenasserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claimsasserted in these suits are collectively referred to as the CommonLaw Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcyof TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued atemporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the StatutoryActions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and anadditional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas andOhio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any furtherlawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations. Additionalcommon law claims were filed against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of theStatutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-sumpayment of up to US$412 million by TPC. In May 2004, the partiesreached a settlement resolving substantially all pending andsimilar future Common Law Claims against TPC. This settlementrequires a payment of up to US$90 million by TPC, subject to anumber of significant contingencies. Among the contingencies foreach of these settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy courtclarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered bythe bankruptcy court (1986 Orders).

On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approvingthe settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred thepending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all CommonLaw Claims pending against TPC (Clarifying Order).

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Orderwhile vacating that portion of the order that required all futuredirect actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcycourt before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. OnFeb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating onjurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of theClarifying Order. On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other partiesto the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing enbanc, requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment,which were denied.

TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for Writ ofCertiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the SecondCircuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the Petitions weregranted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision, findingthat the 1986 Orders are final and generally bar the Statutory andHawaii actions and substantially all Common Law Claims againstTPC. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the bankruptcy courthad jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.

However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certainadditional issues, principally related to procedural matters andthe adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the SupremeCourt remanded the case to the Second Circuit for furtherproceedings on those specific issues.

On Oct. 21, 2009, all but one of the objectors to the ClarifyingOrder requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal ofthe order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in whichit found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to theremaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims bythat objector against TPC.

On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and RehearingEn Banc with the Second Circuit, requesting further review of itsMarch 22, 2010 opinion, which was denied on May 25, 2010. TPCpresently intends to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in theU.S. States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit'sMarch 22, 2010 opinion.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulingsor the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases inTexas state court asserting common law claims. All such cases thatare still pending and in which SPC has been served are currentlyon the inactive docket in Texas state court.

SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct actions in Ohiostate court. Those actions have all been dismissed followingfavorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate courts.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property casualty insurancefor auto, home and business. A component of the Dow JonesIndustrial Average, the Company has more than 30,000 employees andgenerated revenues of about US$25 billion in 2009. The Company isbased in New York.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Records $28M Asbestos Provisions at June 30----------------------------------------------------------------ABB Ltd recorded asbestos provisions of US$28 million as ofJune 30, 2010, compared with US$53 million as of Dec. 31, 2009,according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2010.

The Company recorded asbestos payments of US$25 million during thethree and six months ended June 30, 2010.

The Company's Combustion Engineering Inc. subsidiary (CE) was aco-defendant in a large number of lawsuits claiming damage forpersonal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. A smallernumber of claims were also brought against the Company's formerLummus subsidiary as well as against other entities of theCompany.

Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended,were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The CEplan of reorganization and the Lummus plan of reorganization(collectively, the Plans) became effective on April 21, 2006 andAug. 31, 2006, respectively.

Under the Plans, separate personal injury trusts were created andfunded to settle future asbestos-related claims against CE andLummus and on the respective Plan effective dates, channelinginjunctions were issued under Section 524(g) of the U.S.Bankruptcy Code under which all present and future asbestos-related personal injury claims filed against the Company and itsaffiliates and certain other entities that relate to theoperations of CE and Lummus are channeled to the CE Asbestos PITrust or the Lummus Asbestos PI Trust, respectively.

Included in the asbestos provisions at June 30, 2010, is a paymentof US$25 million to the CE Asbestos PI Trust, payable in 2011, ifthe Company attains an "Earnings before interest and taxes" marginof 9.5 percent in 2010.

If the Company is found by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (theBankruptcy Court) to have defaulted on its asbestos paymentobligations, the CE Asbestos PI Trust may petition the BankruptcyCourt to terminate the CE channeling injunction and theprotections afforded by that injunction to the Company and otherentities of the Company, as well as certain other entities,including Alstom SA.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $7.8MM Chapter 11, Asbestos Costs----------------------------------------------------------------W. R. Grace & Co. recorded net Chapter 11- and asbestos-relatedcosts of US$7.8 million during the three months ended June 30,2010, compared with US$23.4 million during the three months endedJune 30, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related costs wereUS$20.4 million during the six months ended June 30, 2010,compared with US$71.7 million during the six months endedJune 30, 2009.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its United Statessubsidiaries and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operatingsubsidiary W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed voluntary petitions forreorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in theU.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order toresolve its asbestos-related liabilities.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Company filed a Joint Plan ofReorganization and several associated documents, including adisclosure statement, with the Bankruptcy Court.

Confirmation hearings on the Plan concluded in January 2010.Confirmation and consummation of the Plan are now subject to thefindings of the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court for theDistrict of Delaware and the satisfaction of other conditions setforth in the Plan, many of which are outside the Company'scontrol.

Long-term asbestos-related insurance was US$500 million as of bothJune 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. Long-term asbestos-relatedcontingencies were US$1.7 billion as of both June 30, 2010 andDec. 31, 2009.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco, Units Still Subject to Lawsuits in Miss.----------------------------------------------------------------Ensco plc, together with certain current and former subsidiaries,continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits in Mississippi courts.

During 2004, the Company and certain current and formersubsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous otherthird-party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-partylawsuits filed in Mississippi.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, theindividual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whoseclaims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new oramended single plaintiff complaints naming the specificdefendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, theCompany has been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs.Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippistate courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as aresult of their removal from state court.

To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have takenplace in eight cases involving the Company. While several caseshave been selected for trial during 2010 and 2011, none of thecases pending against the Company in Mississippi state court areincluded within those selected cases. Discovery is still ongoing.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company hastwo other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against it inlitigation in other jurisdictions.

London-based Ensco plc is an offshore drilling contractor thatowns a fleet of 45 offshore rigs, including 40 jack-ups, one bargerig, and four ultra-deepwater semisubmersible (capable of drillingin up to 8,500 feet of water). The Company conducts most of itsdrilling business in the Asia/Pacific region (which includes Asia,the Middle East, Australia, and New Zealand).

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Posts $168MM Asbestos Liability--------------------------------------------------------------Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos liability was US$168 millionfor the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$208million for the six months ended June 30, 2009, according to theCompany's quarterly report filed on July 23, 2010 with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's asbestos-related liability was US$169 million forthe three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$210million for the three months ended March 31, 2009. (Class ActionReporter, April 30, 2010)

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$13 million for thesix months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$12 million forthe six months ended June 30, 2009.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in whichcurrent and former employees and other parties allege exposure toasbestos. Additionally, the Company has received claims forasbestos exposure that have not been litigated.

The claims and lawsuits allege occupational illness resulting fromexposure to asbestos-containing products. In most cases, theclaimants do not have credible medical evidence of physicalimpairment resulting from the alleged exposures.

Additionally, most claims filed against the Company do not specifyan amount of alleged damages.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Union Pacific Corporation's Union PacificRailroad is a rail freight carrier. Union Pacific Railroadtransports coal, chemicals, industrial products, and other bulkfreight over a system of more than 32,000 route miles in 23 statesin the western two-thirds of the United States.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Liabilities at $1.543BB at June 30---------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-relatedliabilities were US$1.543 billion as of June 30, 2010, comparedwith US$1.040 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Companyreport, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on July 23, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$1.049billion as of March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, April 30,2010)

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-relatedliabilities were US$854 million as of June 30, 2010, compared withUS$941 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $49MM June 30 Litigation Charges---------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc. recorded asbestos-related litigationcharges, net of insurance, of US$49 million during the threemonths ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$37 million during thethree months ended June 30, 2009, according to the Company'squarterly report filed on July 23, 2010 with the Securities andExchange Commission.

The Company recorded asbestos-related litigation charges of US$87million during the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared withUS$73 million during the six months ended June 30, 2009.

Like many other industrial companies, the Company is a defendantin personal injury actions related to asbestos. The Company didnot mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulationproducts or other construction materials that have been identifiedas the primary cause of asbestos related disease in the vastmajority of claimants.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $816M NARCO Receivable at June 30----------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc.'s consolidated financial statementsreflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability forsettlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims ofUS$816 million as of June 30, 2010 and US$831 million as of Dec.31, 2009.

The Company owned North American Refractories Company from 1979 to1986. NARCO produced refractory products (high temperature bricksand cement) that were sold largely to the steel industry in theEast and Midwest. Less than 2% of NARCO's products containedasbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed toindemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims forproducts that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as definedin the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all otherclaims. On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization underChapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claimspending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending thereorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy courtenjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related asbestosclaims against the Company. The stay has remained in effectcontinuously since Jan. 4, 2002.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paidNARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCOwith up to US$20 million in financing. The Company also agreed topay US$20 million to NARCO's parent company upon the filing of aplan of reorganization for NARCO acceptable to the Company (whichamount was paid in December 2005 following the filing of NARCO'sThird Amended Plan of Reorganization), and to pay NARCO's parentcompany US$40 million, and to forgive any outstanding NARCOindebtedness to the Company, upon the effective date of the planof reorganization.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended orderconfirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO andHoneywell. In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal ofthe Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for theWestern District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed theBankruptcy Court Order in July 2008.

In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the ThirdCircuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is fully briefed, oralargument took place on May 21, 2009, and the matter was submittedfor decision. In connection with the settlement of an insurancecoverage litigation matter, the insurer appellants will withdrawtheir appeal regarding the NARCO Plan.

The NARCO Plan of Reorganization cannot become effective, however,until the resolution of an appeal of the Chapter 11 proceedings ofa NARCO affiliate; in June 2010, the Third Circuit directed thatthis appeal be reheard en banc.

The Company expects that the stay enjoining litigation againstNARCO and the Company will remain in effect until the effectivedate of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect anestimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims of US$1.127 billion as of June 30, 2010and US$1.128 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms andconditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitiveagreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimateof the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed forbankruptcy protection.

Substantially all settlement payments with respect to currentclaims have been made. About US$100 million of payments due underthese settlements is due only upon establishment of the NARCOtrust.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $200M NARCO Receivable at June 30----------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc. says that about US$200 million ofunsettled asbestos coverage under certain policies is included inits North American Refractories Company (NARCO)-related insurancereceivable at June 30, 2010.

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers Casualty and InsuranceCompany filed a lawsuit against the Company and other insurancecarriers in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York,disputing obligations for NARCO-related asbestos claims under highexcess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other insurancecarriers. In July 2010, the Company entered into a settlementagreement resolving all asbestos coverage issues with certainplaintiffs.

The Company said it believes it is entitled to the coverage atissue and expects to prevail in this matter. In the third quarterof 2007, the Company prevailed on a critical choice of law issueconcerning the appropriate method of allocating NARCO-relatedasbestos liabilities to triggered policies.

The plaintiffs appealed and the trial court's ruling was upheld bythe intermediate appellate court in the second quarter of 2009.Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, thehighest court in New York, was denied in October 2009.

A related New Jersey action brought by the Company has beendismissed, but all coverage claims against plaintiffs have beenpreserved in the New York action.

During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded1,215 Bendix claims filed and 204 Bendix claims resolved andreactivated. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Companyrecorded 2,697 Bendix claims filed and 34,708 Bendix claimsresolved and reactivated.

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that containedchrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Existing andpotential claimants consist largely of individuals who allegeexposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or beingin the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through June 30, 2010, the Company has resolved about154,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. The Company had 129 trialsresulting in favorable verdicts and 17 trials resulting in adverseverdicts. Four of these adverse verdicts were reversed on appeal,five verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions, three claimswere settled and the remaining five have been or will be appealed.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect anestimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendixrelated asbestos claims of US$579 million at June 30, 2010 andUS$566 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurancecoverage remaining with respect to pending and potential futureBendix related asbestos claims, of which US$154 million at June30, 2010 and US$172 million at Dec. 31, 2009 are reflected asreceivables in its consolidated balance sheet.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NARCO, Bendix Liabilities at $1.706B at June 30----------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc. recorded total asbestos liabilitiesof US$1.706 billion as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$1.694billion as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Of the US$1.706 billion as of June 30, 2010, about US$579 millionrelated to the Company's Bendix friction material business andUS$1.127 billion related to the Company's former unit, NorthAmerican Refractories Company (NARCO).

The Company's insurance recoveries for asbestos-relatedliabilities were US$970 million as of June 30, 2010, compared withUS$1.003 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Of the US$970 million as of June 30, 2010, about US$154 millionrelated to Bendix and US$816 million related to NARCO.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Records $855Mil Reserve at June 30----------------------------------------------------------------Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was US$855million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$828 million as ofJune 30, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos litigation reserve was US$899million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$796 million as ofMarch 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2010)

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$463million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$464 million as ofJune 30, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$478million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$440 million as ofMarch 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2010)

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brief in AMSF Action v. Halliburton Due Aug. 18----------------------------------------------------------------Halliburton Company says that a brief in opposition to thepetition for writ of certiorari, which was filed by theArchdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, is due on Aug. 18, 2010.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Companyin federal court alleging violations of the federal securitieslaws after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated aninvestigation in connection with its change in accounting forrevenue on long-term construction projects and relateddisclosures. In the weeks that followed, about 20 similar classactions were filed against the Company. Several of those lawsuitsalso named as defendants several of the Company's present orformer officers and directors.

The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amendedconsolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al.v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon theCompany in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of leadplaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of MilwaukeeSupporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. The Companysettled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to filea second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by thecourt. In addition to restating the original accounting anddisclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaintincluded claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of DresserIndustries, Inc. by the Company, including that the Company failedto timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and namedAMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a thirdconsolidated amended complaint and that the Company file itsmotion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion inAugust 2005, at which time the court took the motion underadvisement.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted themotion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claimswhile permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correctdeficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, AMSF filedits fourth amended consolidated complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of thecomplaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motionin July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of theclaims against all individual defendants other than the Company'sChief Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the caseproceed against the CEO and the Company.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,and the Company's response was filed in November 2007. The courtheld a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008denying AMSF's motion for class certification. AMSF then filed amotion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requestingpermission to appeal the district court's order denying classcertification. The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion.

Both parties filed briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oralargument in December 2009. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the districtcourt's order denying class certification.

On May 13, 2010, AMSF filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S.Supreme Court.

Houston-based Halliburton Company, an oilfield service company,serves the upstream oil and gas industry with services rangingfrom locating hydrocarbons to producing oil and gas. The Companyoperates in two segments: Drilling and Evaluation and Completionand Production.

During the three months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded824 new claims, 242 settlements, and 2,709 dismissals. During thethree months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded 1,356 newclaims, 379 settlements, and 4,823 dismissals.

The Company was a defendant in 67,479 asbestos exposure claims asof March 31, 2010, compared with 75,266 claims as of March 31,2009. (Class Action Reporter, April 23, 2010)

As of June 30, 2010, the Company was a defendant in cases filed invarious state and federal courts alleging injury or death as aresult of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 65,352 pending claims as of June 30, 2010, about 23,200claims were pending in New York, about 14,200 claims were pendingin Mississippi, about 10,000 claims were pending in Texas andabout 3,000 claims were pending in Ohio.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are eitherdismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Companyhas paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts inasbestos matters.

The first payment, in the amount of US$2.54 million, was made onJuly 14, 2008, about two years after the adverse verdict, in theJoseph Norris matter in California, after the Company hadexhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies.

The second payment in the amount of US$20,000 was made in June2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in LosAngeles on April 21, 2009.

During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008,the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts bythe jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one ofwhich, the O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on appeal.

The Supreme Court accepted review of the matter by order datedDec. 23, 2009.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane's Appeal in Baccus Lawsuit Ongoing in Pa.----------------------------------------------------------------Crane Co.'s appeal over the James Baccus asbestos claim is ongoingbefore the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in theJames Baccus claim in Philadelphia, with compensatory damages ofUS$2.45 million and additional damages of US$11.9 million.

The Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Jan.5, 2009.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in Brewer Case Still Ongoing----------------------------------------------------------------Crane Co. is pursuing an appeal in the Chief Brewer asbestos-related lawsuit, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2010.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in theChief Brewer claim in Los Angeles. The amount of the judgmententered was US$680,000 plus interest and costs.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in theDennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles. The jury found that theCompany was responsible for one-half of one percent (0.5 percent)of plaintiffs' damages of US$16.93 million. However, based onCalifornia court rules on allocation and damages, judgment wasentered against the Company in the amount of US$1.65 million, pluscosts.

Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with thetrial court requesting judgment in the Company's favornotwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009 the courtadvised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment wasentered in favor of the Company.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post-Trial Moves in Nelson, Bell Still Pending---------------------------------------------------------------Post-trial motions were filed by both Crane Co. and plaintiffs inthe James Nelson and Larry Bell asbestos-related lawsuits.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County, Pa., state court juryfound the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a US$14.5million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th shareof a US$3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $52MM for Settlement, Defense---------------------------------------------------------------The asbestos-related gross settlement and defense costs incurred(before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for Crane Co.totaled US$52 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010 andUS$59.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurancerecoveries and tax effects) for the Company totaled US$27.5million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared withUS$22.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009. (ClassAction Reporter, April 23, 2010)

The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defensecosts, net of funds received from insurers, for the six-monthperiods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 totaled a US$27.5 million netpayment and a US$12.5 million net payment, (reflecting the receiptof US$14.5 million for full policy buyout from Highlands InsuranceCompany), respectively.

Cumulatively through June 30, 2010, the Company has resolved (bysettlement or dismissal) about 66,000 claims, not including MARDOCclaims.

The related settlement cost incurred by the Company and itsinsurance carriers is about US$254 million, for an averagesettlement cost per resolved claim of US$3,845. The averagesettlement cost per claim resolved was US$4,781 during the yearended Dec. 31, 2009 and US$4,186 during the year ended Dec. 31,2008.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Has $672MM Long-Term Liability at June 30----------------------------------------------------------------Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability was US$672,848,000 as ofJune 30, 2010, compared with US$720,713,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009,according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2010.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Subject to Exposure Claims----------------------------------------------------------------PPG Industries, Inc., for over 30 years, has been a defendant inlawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposureto asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2010.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations byplaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuriesinvolving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, knownas Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh CorningCorporation (PC). The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50percent shareholders of PC.

The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, allclaims for any injuries caused by PC products.

As of the April 16, 2000 order that stayed and enjoined asbestosclaims against it, the Company was one of many defendants innumerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claimsserved on it.

During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not beenaware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims.

Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries, Inc. produces coatings andspecialty products. The company serves customers in industrial,transportation, consumer products, and construction markets andaftermarkets. The Company operates in more than 60 countriesaround the globe.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits---------------------------------------------------------------Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries are still defendants invarious legal actions (including proceedings based on allegedexposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current businessactivities.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company'squarterly report filed on July 26, 2010 with the Securities andExchange Commission.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Has $2.5MM Liability at June 30---------------------------------------------------------------Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., at June 30, 2010, had accruedabout US$2.5 million for asbestos liability and related expenses,according to the Company's quarterly report filed on July 27, 2010with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had accrued about US$2.1 millionfor asbestos-related liability and related expenses. (Class ActionReporter, April 30, 2010)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allegeexposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed atvarious locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer,distributor or supplier of asbestos products.

Through June 30, 2010, the Company has been named a defendant inlawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,900plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 1,300 claims were pendingand 3,600 have been closed through dismissals or settlements.

Through June 30, 2010, the claims alleging exposure to asbestosthat have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for anaverage settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim.

On Jan. 14, 2010, the Marchands amended their original petitionfor damages, and on Feb. 1, 2010, Continental filed a peremptoryexception of no right of action based on corporate dissolution. OnApril 15, 2010, the Marchands filed an opposition to Continental'speremptory exception of no right of action.

After a hearing was held, the district court rendered a judgmentthat sustained the peremptory exception of no right of action onbehalf of Continental, based on corporate dissolution. Thedistrict court also sustained the peremptory exception of no rightof action regarding the wrongful death claims and grantedplaintiffs 30 days to amend their petition.

The district court withdrew the peremptory exception of no rightof direct action regarding the alleged executive officers ofPendleton Shipyards Company, Inc. after Continental advised thecourt that the exception had been withdrawn. This writ applicationfollowed.

The Marchands' writ application was granted in part and thedistrict court judgment granting Continental's exception of noright of action was vacated. In all other respects, this writapplication was denied.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Split Ruling in Huber Action--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, issuedsplit rulings in an asbestos case in which Ronald L. Huber is oneof the plaintiffs.

This 2002 action involved claims related to Defendants'representation of the eight above-named Plaintiffs, and of otherssimilarly situated, in consolidated individual personal injuryactions for exposure to asbestos, in the State Court ofMississippi (the "Mississippi Asbestos Exposure ConsolidatedLitigation" or "Mississippi AECL").

At present, the Named Plaintiffs surviving claims were, that inrepresenting them in the Mississippi AECL, Defendants:

-- Breached their fiduciary duties of candor/disclosure and loyalty under Texas law by (i) covertly allocating settlement funds disproportionately/inequitably in favor of other asbestos litigation clients in other states (to maximize the Defendants' revenue from the cases) and (ii) imposing and receiving excessive expenses; but

-- Caused them no actual harm as they failed to show they would have achieved a better outcome in the underlying actions but for counsel's conduct.

Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was filed on March 15, 2010and they failed to comply with the Court's direction. Presentlypending was Defendants' Joint Motion to Strike and DismissAllegations and Claims.

Defendant's Joint Motion to Strike and Dismiss was granted in partand denied in part. Allegations regarding Plaintiffs' entitlementto disgorgement of all fees and a constructive trust werestricken, as were allegations of actual injury/harm andentitlement to an accounting of individual settlement allocations;Defendants' Motion was denied in all other respects.

The case will proceed to consideration of class certification andsummary judgment. Defendants' Answer to the Third AmendedComplaint shall be filed no later than Aug. 3, 2010.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Men Indicted in Harbour Club Cleanup Claim----------------------------------------------------------------Three men from New York were indicted over the illegal removal ofasbestos from the Harbour Club Apartments in Belleville, Mich.,ClickOnDetroit.com reports.

The 47-year-old Peter DeFillippo (a/k/a Charlie DeVito), 30-year-old David Olsen, and 65-year-old Joseph Terranova face charges ofconspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act and making falsestatements to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Officials said the men lied to the MDEQ about the illegal removalof asbestos in June 2008 from the Harbour Club. After a firedestroyed an apartment building in January 2008, a survey revealedthat more than 30,000 square feet of asbestos containing materialswas present in the damaged building.

Authorities said Mr. DeFillippo, owner of Excel Demo. Inc., whichis a general contracting firm from New York, told Mr. Olsen toremove the asbestos.

In order to avoid paying for the asbestos to be properly abated,Mr. Olsen used temporary laborers to remove the asbestos, withoutthe presence of a certified professional, and without using propertechniques according to work practice standards, according to anindictment.

Mr. Terranova supervised capital projects for GFI ManagementServices, Inc., the property management company for Harbour Club.According to the indictment, he was also aware of the asbestos-containing materials in the building and the fact that Mr.DeFilippo and Mr. Olsen planned to remove the materials inviolation of the law.

The men were arrested in the Eastern District of New York andPennsylvania on a four-count indictment. They are scheduled toappear in the Eastern District of Michigan on Aug. 5, 2010.

The Missouri Air Conservation Commission voted to refer the caseto the AG's office in order to attain compliance from the Company.The commission also seeks a civil penalty for the violations.

Accurate Building Inspectors of Springfield, Mo., failed toregister with the department as a certified asbestos contractor,The Rolla Daily News reports. The Company also failed to providenotification of the asbestos work, before beginning the project.

The Air Pollution Control Program documented that the Company usedimproper work practices while removing the asbestos, which mayhave posed a health risk to workers and nearby residents.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 470 Open Suits Ongoing v. U.S. Steel at June 30----------------------------------------------------------------United States Steel Corporation, as of June 30, 2010, was adefendant in about 470 active asbestos cases involving about 3,025plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed onJuly 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of March 31, 2010, the Company was a defendant in about 450active asbestos cases involving about 3,010 plaintiffs. (ClassAction Reporter, April 30, 2010)

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in about 440 activecases involving about 3,040 plaintiffs.

About 2,560, or about 85%, of these claims are currently pendingin jurisdictions that permit filings with massive numbers ofplaintiffs.

These asbestos cases allege various respiratory and other diseasesbased on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is currently adefendant in cases in which a total of about 200 plaintiffs allegethat they are suffering from mesothelioma.

During the period ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded 145claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 130 new claims. Amountspaid to resolve claims were US$5 million.

During the period ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 200claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 190 new claims. Amountspaid to resolve claims were US$7 million.

Pittsburgh-based United States Steel Corporation produces andsells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubularproducts, in North America and Central Europe. Operations in NorthAmerica also include transportation services (railroad and bargeoperations), real estate operations and engineering consultingservices.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Has $3.8M A&E Liabilities at June 30--------------------------------------------------------------Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded long-term asbestos- andenvironmental-related liabilities of US$3.8 million as of June 30,2010, compared with US$3.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company recorded US$6.4 million as of June 30, 2010 (US$7.3million as of Dec. 31, 2009) for A&E matters (recorded in"Accounts payable and other" in the balance sheets).

The amounts were primarily to address remediation of contaminatedsites, asbestos containing materials, management of hazardouswaste material disposal, outstanding air quality measures forcertain of the Company's liquids and natural gas assets andpenalties it has been or expected to be assessed.

Houston-based Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns the 1,900-mileUnited States portion of the world's longest liquid petroleumpipeline. When combined with the Canadian segment (owned andoperated by Enbridge Inc.), the pipeline system spans about 3,500miles across North America.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Records $43M Payments at June 30----------------------------------------------------------------Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s asbestos-related cash payments during thesecond quarter of 2010 were US$43 million, down from US$49 millionduring the second quarter of 2009, according to a Company report,on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onJuly 28, 2010.

New lawsuits and claims filed during the first half of 2010 wereabout 29 percent lower than the same period last year. The numberof pending asbestos-related lawsuits and claims was about 6,400 asof June 30, 2010, down from about 6,900 at the end of 2009.

Current asbestos-related liabilities were US$175 million as ofboth June 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. Long-term asbestos-relatedliabilities were US$233 million as of June 30, 2010 and US$310.10million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Face Injury Claims----------------------------------------------------------------Flowserve Corporation continues to be a defendant in a number ofpending lawsuits (which include, in many cases, multipleclaimants) that seek to recover damages for personal injuryallegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing productsmanufactured and/or distributed by its heritage companies in thepast.

While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generallydeclined in recent years, there can be no assurance that thistrend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will notincrease.

Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such productswere primarily encapsulated and used as components of processequipment, and the Company said it does not believe that anysignificant emission of asbestos-containing fibers occurred duringthe use of this equipment.

These lawsuits are primarily product liability claims. The Companyis presently named as a defendant in about 2,500 lawsuits,primarily involving respiratory protection products allegedlymanufactured and sold by the Company.

Collectively, these lawsuits represent a total of about 11,800plaintiffs. About 90% of these lawsuits involve plaintiffsalleging they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder allegingthey suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted inpart from respirators that were negligently designed ormanufactured by the Company. Consistent with the experience ofother companies involved in silica and asbestos-relatedlitigation, in recent years there has been an increase in thenumber of asserted claims that could potentially involve theCompany.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company Mine SafetyAppliances Company develops, manufactures and supplies productsthat protect people's health and safety. Its comprehensive line ofsafety products is used by workers around the world in the fireservice, homeland security, construction, and other industries, aswell as the military.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Cites $4.5M Litigation Expense at July 2----------------------------------------------------------------Colfax Corporation's asbestos coverage litigation expenses wereUS$4,543,000 during the three months ended July 2, 2010, comparedwith US$4,027,000 during the three months ended July 3, 2009,according to a Company press release dated July 28, 2010.

The Company recorded asbestos coverage litigation expenses ofUS$3,881,000 during the three months ended April 2, 2010, comparedwith US$2,966,000 during the three months April 3, 2009, accordingto a Company press release dated April 30, 2010. (Class ActionReporter, May 7, 2010)

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashfield Joiner Death Linked to Hazard Exposure----------------------------------------------------------------An inquest heard that the death of John Alan Simpson, a formerjoiner from Kirkby-in-Ashfield, England, was linked to workplaceexposure to asbestos, the Nottingham Post reports.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cumbria Steel Worker's Death Linked to Exposure----------------------------------------------------------------An inquest ruled that the death of Peter William Taylor, a retiredgas fitter and steel worker from Great Broughton, Cumbria,England, was linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, News & Starreports.

Mr. Taylor died on Feb. 13, 2010 at the age of 68 frommesothelioma. He was diagnosed with the disease in 2009.

Prior to his death, and after being diagnosed, Mr. Taylor made afull statement about his work history, which was read out duringthe hearing.

In it, Mr. Taylor said he was involved with the demolition ofblast furnaces at Workington steelworks in the 1970s. He describedbeing lowered into the furnaces and using a hammer and pick tobreak up the bricks and cement.

After leaving the steelworks, Mr. Taylor worked as a gas fitterfor Northern Gas, now British Gas, where he spent most of hiscareer. He said a large part of his job was to dig trenches andlay new plastic gas pipes to replace the old ones, which were madefrom asbestos.

Mr. Taylor, who was married to Sarah Eleanor and had a daughterSusanna, left British Gas in 1994. He was born in Workington andinitially worked down the pit in Siddick. He also served overseaswith the Paras. He retired in 1997 following a brain hemorrhage.

North and west Cumbria's coroner, David Roberts, said, "I'mentirely satisfied that Mr. Taylor was exposed to asbestos duringhis working life. My verdict is that he died of industrialdisease, namely mesothelioma."

Stellison admitted to breaching the Health and Safety At Work Actby failing to protect the health, safety and welfare of theiremployees.

Colchester Council brought the charges after visiting Stellison'spremises in Harwich Road, Colchester, on Nov. 18, 2009. Aninspector found staff had been exposed to asbestos fibers whileworking in the storeroom. He noticed fibrous material whereAsbestos Insulation Board (AIB), known as Asbestolux, had beenremoved.

Stellison was served with a Prohibition Notice to prevent accessto the affected area until it was decontaminated, and anImprovement Notice requiring them to come up with a managementplan.

The Council said Stellison failed to ensure damaged asbestoscontaining materials were removed until March 2007, despite havingan Asbestos survey nearly two years earlier.

The contractor appointed to remove it was not licensed by theAsbestos Licensing Unit of the Health and Safety Executive toremove this type of asbestos.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Read Family Seeks Witnesses in Claim for Payout----------------------------------------------------------------Solicitors and the family of William Read, of Darwen, England, areseeking witnesses after Mr. Read died of asbestos-related lungcancer, the Lancashire Telegraph reports.

Mr. Read, who died in March 2009, found that he had lung cancer in2008. From 1956 to 1971, he worked for building and maintenancecompany S. Sharples (Darwen) Limited, where he was employed as ageneral laborer and was exposed to asbestos. The Company no longerexists.

Mr. Read, who died at the age of 84, instructed John Pickering andPartners LLP to bring a claim for compensation for his contractionof an asbestos related cancer. The case is against the formerCompany's insurers.

Mr. Read's family is now seeking witnesses who worked with him atS. Sharples (Darwen) Limited, who can support their claim.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Strawbridge Dismisses Lawsuits by 7 Plaintiffs----------------------------------------------------------------U.S. Magistrate Judge David Strawbridge dismissed lawsuits filedby seven plaintiffs and sanctioned their law firm in the ongoingmultidistrict asbestos litigation in the U.S. District Court forthe Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to a Forman PerryWatkins Krutz & Tardy LLP press release dated July 27, 2010.

As part of the dismissals, Judge Strawbridge ordered plaintiffs'attorneys with the Franklin, Cardwell & Jones law firm of Houstonto pay more than US$34,000 to the Jackson, Miss.-based defensefirm of Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP.

The payment is based on Forman Perry's cost and fees to establishcase discovery protocols for screening records of the plaintiffs'diagnosing physician, Dr. Jay T. Segarra of Gulfport, Miss.

Dr. Segarra's practices and methods, including the questionableaccuracy of his diagnoses, are the subject of recurring challengesby defense attorneys in MDL 875.

Marcy B. Croft of Forman Perry said, "The court continues to makeprogress in separating the valid and invalid claims in MDL 875.It's clear that opposing counsel recognized that these claimswould not withstand scrutiny and not meet the standards ofaccountability and reliability established by the court."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace, Oldon to Pay for Cleanup at Wemelco Site----------------------------------------------------------------W. R. Grace & Co. and Oldon Limited Partnership agreed to pay forasbestos cleanup at the 2.3-acre site and contiguous building onWemelco Way in Easthampton, Mass., Mesothelioma reports.

Grace used the Wemelco Way site to manufacture Zonolite brandattic insulation and fireproofing compounds from the asbestos-contaminated vermiculite shipped from its mine in Libby, Mont.

Oldon Limited Partnership leased the land and building to Gracefrom 1963 to 1992. The acreage is located in a mixed-use zone thatcombines housing, manufacturing, retail sales and evenagricultural production. Both the now-abandoned building and thesoil behind it contain asbestos, according to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency investigations.

Grace and Oldon will jointly pay about US$833,000 to clean up theasbestos in the building, in identified soils behind the buildingand adjacent to it, and along a railroad right-of-way purchased bythe city to create a recreational biking trail to Southhampton.

Both companies have also agreed to refund the EPA US$72,537, whichthe EPA paid for basic asbestos remediation prior to theagreement.

Regarding the Easthampton site, EPA Region 1 Administrator CurtSpalding praised both Grace and Oldon for doing the "right thing",and for setting an example of corporate environmentalresponsibility.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taiwan to Ban Asbestos Use Within 10 Years-----------------------------------------------------------Taiwan's Environmental Protection Administration, on July 26,2010, declared its plan to phase out the use of asbestos withinthe next 10 years, Focus Taiwan reports.

Lin Chien-hui, director of the EPA's Department of EnvironmentalSanitation and Toxic Substance Management, said that inconsideration of the time needed to deal with the ban, it will becarried out in two stages.

Asbestos will no longer be used as a sealing material inconstruction starting in July 1, 2015.

Starting July 1, 2020, it will be banned for use in tiles, liningand extruded cement panels.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Fairfield Hills to Cost $6T Extra---------------------------------------------------------------The removal of asbestos from a Fairfield Hills, Conn., duplex willend up costing the town US$6,000 more than expected, according toofficials who voted to use funds from the Fairfield HillsAuthority's miscellaneous account to make up the difference,NewtownPatch reports.

Discovery of the additional cost comes as workers finish asbestosremoval at the Stratford Falls building, the former library andexecutive dining hall of the former state mental healthinstitution, and duplex no. 58, officials said.

The Fairfield Hills campus contains five duplexes, all of whichwere formerly used as staff residences.

"The Stratford building has been completed and has been turnedback to the town," Economic and Community Development Director LizStocker told the Fairfield Hills Authority during its July 21,2010 meeting at the C.H. Booth Library. "Duplex no. 58 will becompleted and the same thing should occur where we would take backthe premises."

Officials said that with those two projects out of the way, thecleanup of duplex no. 59 is presenting more of a challenge. Mostof the funds used for asbestos cleanup were covered under federalstimulus money, but the town has had to cover part of the cost.

Workers have to remove part of the concrete in order to fullyremove the asbestos from the piping, Ms. Stocker said. The addedstep had been unanticipated and while the contractor was willingto do the work without charging the town extra for duplex no. 58,a change order that will add US$2,700 in costs will have to beattached to the work for duplex no. 59, Ms. Stocker said.

Duplex no. 59 also has a collapsed porch that will cost anadditional US$8,500 to remove and asbestos in some of the ceramicwall tiles and mastic not found in duplex no. 58, which addsanother US$4, 200, for a total project cost of US$33,218, notincluding consultant fees, Ms. Stocker said.

Initially, authority members talked about leaving the tilesintact, which would allow for the bulk of asbestos removal to bedone without increasing the cost by much.

That would leave the situation for the buyer or whoever wouldinhabit the duplex in the future to sort out, officials said.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.